Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Viscount Bridgeman (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 March 2006. It occurred during Question for short debate on Secure Training Centres.


Secure Training Centres

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for getting this debate at such an opportune time. It is particularly important because of her commitment to child welfare, with which we are all so familiar. I would like to talk about public-private partnerships, which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, have referred to in different ways. The noble Lord referred to the difficult place the secure training centres have in the profile, with the rather more structured organisations of the Department of Health and the Home Office lying on either side. I do not want to go into the politics of the public-private partnerships. These were started by the Conservative government, and have been inherited by this one. The problem must be addressed. The centres are more complicated, but the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has made suggestions for a more thorough monitoring of them. I happen to be the chairman of an independent hospital, and our inspection standards are higher than those applying to the National Health Service. I gather the reverse is true of these secure training centres. It is a concept that has so many advantages, and must be made to work so that the poor relation of the childcare industry is looked after. There has been reference to the very good debate in another place by Sally Keeble. She raised the concerns of so many at the frequent use of restraints, which I think may have come as a surprise to many people. That was reinforced by the Carlile report, of which we have heard tonight. Let us be under no illusion about the violent behaviour that these children, of an average age of 14, can display, but she has paid particular attention to the restraints used, and that has been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. It is pleasing that the double restraint and other methods have been either abandoned or recommended to be. The restraint has to be a balance between humaneness and effectiveness. That is the challenge to these centres. Sally Keeble made the important point that physical control, which is supposed only to be used for the protection of residents and staff, appears in certain cases to have been used as a means of discipline, which is not permitted. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has referred to the huge cost of inmates—I think they are called trainees—in these institutions, which is something like six times that of the most expensive independent school. One of the questions that has puzzled me is the alarming statistic of the assault rate in the centres being something like 10 times that of young offender institutions. I refer back to the noble Baroness’s comparison with Scottish children’s homes. Allowing for her loyalty as a Scot, she painted a very impressive picture. We on these Benches have always criticised the Government for not paying attention to the practice in other countries with regard to the health service. I wonder whether the Home Office should not look again, much nearer home in this case, at the practice in Scotland and see what can be learnt. I gather the Welsh experience is also a good one. We have devolution. There is a chance to gain from apparently more successful and more humane treatment in Scotland, and to see whether that can be adapted to England. This has been a very interesting debate, with the usual high quality of speakers. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c825-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Body searches Custodial treatment Education Parents Rehabilitation Training Young offenders Secure accommodation Restraint techniques Secure training centres Solitary confinement Visits
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk